Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, J
Union of India through : Chief Engineer Pathankot Zone, Pathankot – Appellant
Versus
Bharat Construction Private Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard both sides.
2. For a contract work of construction of OTM (Other than Married) Accommodation for Inf. Bn. Kulian (Miran Saheb), Jammu, the respondent M/s Bharat Construction, as being a successful bidder, stood allotted the contract.
3. The value for which said contract came to be so allotted to the respondent was Rs.17,36,75,306.90. An agreement in writing bearing CA No. CEPZ–29/2007–2008 in terms of a letter dated 31/07/2007 to said effect with the respondent came to be executed on behalf of the Union of India through Chief Engineer, Pathankot Zone.
4. A contract related dispute between the two parties was amenable to an arbitration in terms of arbitration clause in the General Conditions of Contract IAFW-2249 being made part of said contract agreement so executed with the respondent.
5. The contract work though commenced from its scheduled date 16/08/2007 but could not be completed within or on its due date of completion on 15/08/2010 which, thus, came to be extended for completion to 21/09/2012 when the contract work came to be so completed by the respondent as certified by the Department with regard to the completion.
6. The conduct of the contract work from its
Judicial review of arbitral awards is limited; courts should not interfere unless there is clear evidence of perversity or violation of public policy.
The court affirmed that arbitral awards challenging under Sections 34 and 37 are limited in scope, requiring clear evidence of illegality or perversion; otherwise, the Arbitrator's decision stands.
Point of law : learned Arbitrator in his discretion can award pendentelite and future interest from the date of award till realization of the awarded amount because the terms of the contract did not ....
The Court's power while exercising jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Act is limited, and it cannot undertake an independent assessment on the merits of the Award.
The court affirmed the limited scope of review under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing respect for arbitral awards unless stark violations of public policy or procedural....
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of interference with arbitral awards and the principle that courts should not interfere with arbitral awards unless there is a patent illegality or violation....
The court emphasized that arbitral awards should not be interfered with solely based on disagreements with findings, affirming the limited grounds for appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
